Stay architecturally enlightened!

MoMA to raze ex American Folk Art Museum building

MoMA officials said the building’s design did not fit their plans because the opaque facade is not in keeping with the glass aesthetic of the rest of the museum.
— NYT

Robin Pogrebin reported that MoMA expects to have the building demolished by the end of this year.

h/t Donna Sink over at TC, who commented "It's tragic. We need to start a thread on it and call for a boycott of the new project by all architects. If MOMA moves ahead with this I will never step foot in their museum again"...

a museum of the modern - supposedly steward of the legacy of modern art and design - destroying a stunning and unique design work by recognized and celebrated designers because its location on their own campus is inconvenient.

to be included 'in the collection' of the museum of modern art will no longer mean what it did. i always thought it was pretty special, not only a recognition of achievement but such a distinction that to be 'collected' meant to be set-aside, given sanctuary, and celebrated. now it will come with a disclaimer: 'eligible for disposal at our discretion'.

of course they'd respond that this wasn't a design acquisition, merely a real estate deal. and they'd both be right and more unforgivable for having made such a cold distinction.

Its pretty much just the facade anyone cares about. I don't see why it can't be relocated to another building or treated as a sculpture and installed somewhere in the building. I'm sure there will be a reuse plan revealed in the near future.

"the disapproval of the architecture and design community should be clear" It's amazing how insular many architects are. Some, but not the whole archtiecture community seems to be up in arms over a creased opaque wall. Can you imagine anyone on the street thinking twice about this building?

But Thayer-D, it is entirely comparable to "anyone on the street" looking at a Jackson Pollock and not "thinking twice". In other words, it doesn't matter if a man on the street thinks it's a good building or not: through acknowledged academic means one can determine that it is. It's the work of recognized talent, it's been published and awarded, and it's ON MoMA's campus, i.e., it's part of their collection. MoMA is an institution that is charged with recognizing and protecting valuable contributions to material and intellectual human culture, and there really is no argument that FAM isn't a valuable contribution. They're not even just de-accessioning it, they're destroying it.

What I posted elsewhere: My opinion: one the best examples of a direct program-to-structure translation that has been built, especially at this scale, and without being hokey at all. The direct relationship between folk art and personal handcraft is perfectly represented in the tombasil panel fabrication, and the entirety of the interior space allows one to see the hand of the builder at work. From a material standpoint it's one of the best buildings I've ever experienced; though granted the gallery spaces are far from "clean white box" I think for the type of art being presented they are charming and relevant.

This in part is why the demolition is so heartbreaking. Folk art aka outsider art, art made by people without an intent to do anything but use physical materials to manifest a personal idea. It's not art made for a market (at least not as it was found originally, certainly a market for "outsider" art exists today). This building is an incredibly specific response to a program about non-institutionalized work, and it's an entirely unique building and space. It's exactly the opposite of what MoMA stands for and how it physically represents itself: today, MoMA =clean well-lit glass and white homogeneity. FAM is a glimmer of humanity and a lovely encapsulation of the notion of personal artistic endeavor.

One of my favorite buildings - and now I will only have the pictures and drawings of it in architectural record - maybe MOMA can have an exhibit of it after they demo it - fort those of us who will never see the real thing.

I don't know what the proposed tower's bulk and height is -- but leaving the FAM in place would surely impact the volume and the structure of the tower. Could the tower be cantilevered for most (?) of its height, above the little museum ? Probably. I agree with Donna's comments -- but if the best that can be said of the Tsien/Williams interior is that it shows the "hand of the builder at work," and that the galleries are "charming and relevant," then perhaps it's the facade that really needs to be preserved -- in place ?

The claim that the "opaque facade is not in keeping with the glass aesthetic of the rest of the museum" is entirely bogus -- isn't it ? What a handsome interruption of the street is this little gem . . .

Donna, you bring up some great points. I trust that this building has garnered strong affection amongst some architects as many postings here attest to. Your defense that this building's quality and worth has been vetted "through acknowledged academic means" and becasue "It's the work of recognized talent, it's been published and awarded" speaks to the differing value systems at work here. The current academic/media complex that promotes this kind of work is part of the problem by propogating two distinct classes of architecture. There's the upper class which relies on institutional approval and having the right credentials to gain acceptance and there's the lower class, ironically more like "Folk art aka outsider art", architecture made by people with the intent to please average folks.

The irony is modernism (Bauhaus) was supposed to bring art to regular people by-passing the academies and their schlorotic rules of composition and taste. The situation has completely reversed itself now that when an architect does something "folks" like, ie. full of decoration and legible cultural references, it's derided as pedestrian. While there's always been this divide and surely there will always be (it's in our nature), it's in full display on this site where people assume to speak for the whole profession. I'm not promoting some bs overthrough of the institutions or some such garbage as I believe there's room for many perspectives and they each make the other richer and more interesting, but the irony here is thick. The folk art museum that folks could care less about.

The building is a great record of a bygone era rooted in phenomenology and material/detail fetishism, which unfortunately proved to be very expensive and not terribly folksy. It's a shame that the construction costs contributed to the downfall of the original occupant. That said, I understand MoMA's stance on their architectural direction, but then again, they're a museum. Maybe they should act like a museum rather than a sleazy, machine-like corporation. I'm all for MoMA wanting to maintain a progressive identity, but in this first (?) preservation challenge, they come off as a business. Period. And we expect more from our cultural institutions. Sometimes, regardless what some of our current architectural heroes espouse, you have to say, "fuck free market economics!"

I think the MoMA should explain with more detail-- it seems “off mission” to say the least. I imagine they have some strong fiscal/programmatic reasons; they need to clearly articulate them before it becomes a real PR mess. Like many others I am confused.

I"d keep this building over the multitude of "parametric" crap that has scarred the earth anytime. I mean how many louvered facades made to look like melted white plastic do we need?

I also didn't realize that an architecture that celebrates craftsmanship, artistry, detail and poetics of space was a "fetishized" fade in architecture. Where was it stated that anesthetized materials made to look like the anonymous "white" of a rhino model become the height of material expression and importance?

I think that the MoMA's architecture is just as valid as the Folk Art Museum. Both are authentic works of art and architecture. Taniguchi's spaces are perfect for the MoMA. I have no problem with white as a flexible backdrop for modern art as its focal point.

However, the problem I have is when a certain method or style becomes like a growing virus, destroying other authentic pieces around it. We need more of both architects' sensibilities in the modern architecture world that is unhumane. The Folk Art Museum was a building in which the building and folk art were in dialogue with each other. So much of post modern architecture is "parametric" or out of scale that the FAM's demise is a sign that we may be losing human scale and value for good.

This is one of the very few "famous" buildings I have ever been in. Imagine a young architecture student, from the country, visiting NYC for the first time. It was cold, and grey, and noisy outside, and when we suddenly turned a corner, and entered the Folk Art Museum, it became warm, quiet, and calm. It was a sanctuary. I don't remember what the outside of the building looked like at all. I don't. But the interiors were inspirational for me. The staircase was the first time I got down on my hands and knees to investigate a building element. I didn't own a digital camera at the time, and couldn't afford film and development, so I have no pictures of that day. We spent hours in that building, petting walls, studying details, and resting, almost meditating. It was a wonderful place, and a wonderful experience.

I too don't have an issue with Taniguchi's addition. It is a nice space but nothing that overwhelms me as exemplary architecture. In fact it mirrors a majority of the ubiquitous white-box museum interiors that nearly every museum uses from the MoMa to the DAM to the National Gallery.

However, the FAM is a uniquely modern building I think because it didn't trend with the corporatized modernism that surrounds it. I think if MoMA wants to remain a champion of "modern" art it needs to think outside the sclerotic box of mid-centuryism it has created for itself.

As for the parametric fade now dominating the world of large scale architecture, some is better than others, but the uniformity of the aesthetics shared by many are to say the least, disappointing.

I am sad that the demise of the FAM had to the be the catalyst for a debate about the disposability of our culture in general and worse, the disposability of our supposed cultural institutions.

I have a bit of bias towards the demolition of the FAM because I am a big admirer of TWBT. Having visited their other museums and other buildings, I have a great respect for the deliberateness of their designs, the materiality, and complexity of space without being overly complex and the sense of permanence of their buildings.

I discovered an unintentional irony yesterday. I visited MoMA's website and the first image that appeared was a model of Tatlin's Tower. The unrealized structure's model protected by security guards, cameras and a velvet rope. How these steward's of modern art and design could even consider demolishing this jewel of a building is beyond me. So, the floor plates don't line up. How much difference is there? The difference can't be made up with, say a ramp?, Architects know how to design ramps. It's on the A.R.E. Perhaps the walls next to the ramps could even display art, like say the Guggenheim?. Or perhaps the interconnection is an undefined area where "things" can happen, like say , repose or gathering or...Perhaps the museum could use an actual example of great architectural design to, oh I don't know, exhibit their architecture, design and craft collection??? What it all tells me is they want this building gone so they can create a seemless money maker with an eigty story condo on top. Maybe the permits can be expedited quickly so the demolition can start in time for the upcoming Corbu show. What a fucking joke.

Righteous indignation occurs when something of value to a group of people is threatened. I guess if you don't believe in indignation, that would mean you don't hold anything of value. I can see why a building can be dismissed as fetishizing materials. Like music fetishizes rhythmic sounds, math fetishizes numbers, doctors fetishize the human body, etc. etc. If we tear down a church, yankee stadium, all of Paris and Rome, genocide, murder, etc that would cause a yawn?

As Camus says, we choose what we value. So if you don't value anything, I guess you defer to others to make the decisions about what the world will look like.

It is true that the opinions of the powerful are mostly a deciding factor, so the people are only powerful as a mob. So if we we decide this building is important we will rise up and save it. Or at least try to (will probably fail).

I guess that is what design is all about. Who and what decide how the world is like. If you only think that buildings are material fetishes and not political, then look at the Citigroup Building in New York.

In my opinion the design was always too much about the craft of that facade. Even the way the building is situated on the site ensures that the facade is the dominant element. Today it looks like small brooch attached to the MoMA.

Ultimately the problem and story behind this building is a story of poor management. I think the most realistic conversation to have at this point would be on the topic of reuse and relocation.

So, the Folk Art Museum hits financial trouble because of an expensive building, which they then lose to the MoMA who will demolish it. The absurdity is astounding. I guess if you understand that, you know why our country is in huge debt. Probably goes back to something about Wall Street and the money in art-which ultimately comes from the people.

The other "thought" is that architecture seems to have lost the battle to the "brand." When MoMA talks of expansion, it is no different then McDonalds or Trump. Their brand is not so much Taniguchi's architecture, but an idea of modernism from the 1940s.

By the way, vado, your post is so full of brilliance I can't even pick a favorite part.

I'm seeing so many well-stated, intelligent, and passionate responses to this announcement and all of them argue logically and convincingly for why this is a huge mistake, and an especially ironic/devastating blow coming from a museum.

T-D brings up some good points, I trust that Penn Station has garnered strong affection amongst some architects as many postings here attest to. The defense that Penn Station's quality and worth has been vetted "through acknowledged academic means" and becasue "It's the work of recognized talent, it's been published and awarded" speaks to the differing value systems at work here. The current academic/media complex that promotes 1910 Penn Station is part of the problem by propogating two distinct classes of architecture. There's the upper class which relies on institutional approval and having the right credentials to gain acceptance and there's the lower class, more like the high rise affordable housing, architecture made for people with the intent to provide upper class living for lower class citizens.

The irony is that McKim, Mead & White were supposed to bring art to regular people by-passing the academies and their classical rules of composition and taste. The situation has completely reversed itself now that when an architect does something "neoclassical", it's a gigantic waste of money everyday people don't care about or want to pay for. While there's always been this divide and surely there will always be (cause jesus says so), it's in full display on this site where people assume to speak for the whole profession (T-D assumes to speak for all people BTW). I'm not promoting some bs overthrow of the institutions or some such garbage as I believe there's room for retarded perspectives and they make the others slower and waste air, but the irony here is thick. The train station people don't want to take.

"I am sad that the demise of the FAM had to the be the catalyst for a debate about the disposability of our culture in general and worse, the disposability of our supposed cultural institutions." Whatever one's stylistic preferences, the next 20 years will be interesting in that more modernist buildings will be threatened with demolition and the older modernists will be in the position of traditionalists who are called ludites for wanting to maintain some kind of cultural continuity that lasts longer than 20 years.

"What it all tells me is they want this building gone so they can create a seemless money maker with an eigty story condo on top. Maybe the permits can be expedited quickly so the demolition can start in time for the upcoming Corbu show. What a fucking joke." It's no joke. Corbu would have been proud to see buildings torn down for his vision, except that now instead of lousy teanaments (brick boxes with historicist decales) it's high modernis. Sarah Hamilton's experience and other commentary here is moving and clearly they ought to consider re-using this building, which makes me think that vado is correct, they want to stick a condo tower on the site.

Does the MOMA still has that "pile of lint on the floor" art work? I've always wondered if people would dig into their own pockets to contribute to western art history.

My first experience with this building was very similar to Sarah's except I remember the facade very well. I think we doubt the intelligence and wisdom of NYers when we say that, for the most part, the building is unappreciated by the population at large. Every New Yorker I've talked to about it that knows the building has an opinion on it, usually positive. To alot of architects and students here in the city, that building is a practically sacred.

Well I guess I'm never going to MoMA again. Good thing the Met got a billion worth of cubist art recently.

money money money money mooonnnneeyyy! Fuck Moma. These yuppy corporate elitists suck the soul out of everything in the name of profit. They are a cancer on our earth and our culture. These kind are the worst....the ones that wear a liberal mask and act like true fascist neocons...This guy is probably buddies with bloomberg... Condos and retail! are you all really surprised. I bet any protest will be met with the storm trooper ny fascist police squad.

So I admit I'm confused: Nouvel designed a tower, but as I recall it was unclear on what would happen to the FAM if it was built. The Times article says they are going to select an architect soon, right? So is there a design or not? Because honestly I'm not above sending an angry letter to whatever architect thinks the commission is worth being complicit in destroying this building.

The footprint of the FAM is such a small portion of the proposed tower site, surely it would be possible to cantilever a tower over the building instead of tearing it down. You know, something like the Citicorps Bldg. The fact that MoMA doesn't appear to have considered such a course of action makes this decision seem even more willful.

"the next 20 years will be interesting in that more modernist buildings will be threatened with demolition and the older modernists will be in the position of traditionalists who are called ludites for wanting to maintain some kind of cultural continuity that lasts longer than 20 years."

We don't have to wait 20 years for that to happen. It's already happening. Here in New Orleans, the Recovery School District (behind closed doors) decided to demolish the mid-century Wheatley elementary school because it was said to be too expensive to modify. The community and private individuals presented proposals for alternate solutions & even offered to buy the property outright. The RSD rejected all proposals and demolished the building basically overnight to "avoid" further delay. What replaced it? An ersatz version of a "traditional" school house made to look like it was buit in 1910. The irony of this of course is that three blocks from that site, another decaying RSD property that actually dates to 1900 rots away because it too was "too expensive" to fix (despite operating as a school prior to Katrina).

I bring this up because, many of these decisions are, not surprisingly, politically and financially motivated. I predict that despite the protestations of the design community and and citizens that appreciate(d) the FAM, that MoMA will raze the FAM and build their corporatized 'Corbu' cube of plastered white walls that will fail to even elicit respect or admiration for the boringness of its architecture.

The mid-century modernism that existing in south Louisiana is purposefully neglected and demolished because it doesn't fit the "southern living" aesthetic of moss-covered brick and wrought iron balconies cantilevered precariously over rotting foundations or antebellum plantation estates.

There is a reason New Orleans is referred to as the City that Care Forgot.

The tappered massing is kind of striking, but the diagonal members are a bit distracting. It would probably enhance the midtown skyline but I don't see how you save the jewel box facade in this composition. Best to re-build it in Greenpoint.